I love the rubbish overpriced DLC. Other people will buy it, I won't, therefore they subsidize my coreCiv 5 experience. win-win.
Win-win? Has it occurred to you that the Core game or expansion might get trimmed back a little and offered as DLC...?
I love the rubbish overpriced DLC. Other people will buy it, I won't, therefore they subsidize my coreCiv 5 experience. win-win.
Has it occurred to you that the Core game or expansion might have get trimmed back a little and offered as DLC...?
Has it occurred to you that it probably won't?
<< Lemon's "Crackpot theories" snipped. >>Oh, and as for crackpot theories:
'd like to point out that I have raised some concerns and objections, and also defended my position, without personally attacking those who disagree with me, for the simple reason that I don't want this thread closed because of a flame war.
Honestly, this just isn't true. Some statements are known to be false incorrect, and are thus less valid. There is a difference between hypothetical situations which haven't been directly ruled out, and spreading rumors which have already been officially debunked. The latter is just irresponsible.The issues and comments raised by everyone are valid, and are potentially good feedback for the developers as PoM and others have indicated earlier.
2. The only workably functioning mods available will need to be sanctioned by Steam, and you may only get them from Steam, effectively shutting down most of Civ's online modding community. - Fail
3. You may have to pay a "handling" fee for downloading those mods, in effect making them DLC. - Fail
There is no way for Company A to guarantee any behavior (or lack thereof) from Company B. They would simply never do it because they have no way to enforce the guarantee. Asking for one is ludicrous. That, by the way, is probably why Steam specifically does not guarantee users' ability to access the games that use Steam - Steam is only the distributor. If they get a court order telling them to discontinue access to some game because some publisher is in legal hot water - they will have to do it.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that if I was the one posing a hypothetical situation, the rules are different. At no time did I say anything about what I was writing was the truth, or known fact, nor was I attempting to begin a campaign of fear mongering. I have repeatedly stated that what I was saying were my own personal feelings, and some concerns that I had about the distribution model. Those were concerns of mine, based on personal experience in dealing with a similar model of marketing, (Cell phones, cable companies, and ISPs come to mind. The product is different, but the end result does not live up to the promises made.), and a recent experience with another digital distribution network.There is a difference between hypothetical situations which haven't been directly ruled out, and spreading rumors which have already been officially debunked. The latter is just irresponsible.
No. You read it again. I specifically posed those comments as hypothetical scenarios, and how I would feel if they turned out to be true, and why they would cause me not to purchase Civ5, which was on topic. Why is my hypothetical scenario invalid but one that you, or others would pose is not? At the time of my OP, I had not read that particular information from 2K. Ok, fine, you've proven your point. I remain skeptical of the explanation, and so do a number of other people, and they are also voicing concerns. It's our right to be concerned that the distributor may choose to limit the freedoms that we have enjoyed with Civ4. It's our responsibility to voice those concerns in a reasonable manner. I believe that I have done that.Please read again what you wrote.
Firaxis/2K have SPECIFICALLY STATED that mods will not need to go through Steam, and that they will still be freely tradeable and installable through fansites like CivFanatics for free, just like for Civ4.2. The only workably functioning mods available will need to be sanctioned by Steam, and you may only get them from Steam, effectively shutting down most of Civ's online modding community. - Fail
3. You may have to pay a "handling" fee for downloading those mods, in effect making them DLC. - Fail
Any concern is legitimate in the proper context. You are cherry picking points from our posts, and to this point, you have outright refused to acknowledge that I have repeatedly stated that my scenario is hypothetical.So these are not legitimate concerns.
Making these claims is calling the 2K staff who visit these forums outright liars. I don't think that's ok.
Defensive? Hardly. At no time did I spread disinformation. I offered up an opinion, and I have stated so.Don't get defensive when you're called out for deliberately spreading disinformation.
But it hasn't been. We're talking *one whole civ** being the "deluxe" bonus.Win-win? Has it occurred to you that the Core game or expansion might get trimmed back a little and offered as DLC...?
It's quite simple.
BONUS: something in addition to what is expected or strictly due
How is it a bonus, when:
1) You get less, because you receive no box, no disc, no nice packaging, no manual, etc... No tangible products.
2) You get extremely minimal content. 1 civ and a map. They stated making maps is extremely simple and quick to create (his 9 yr old could do it <-- this is probably the map they threw in).
3) You are Paying ALOT more for hardly anything at all ($10 bucks is alot for a civ); perhaps even less since you don't get an actual product.
4) Digital Download is extremely cheap for companies compared to tangible product distribution; by huge amounts. Valve and 2K are pushing this with a "Not-Free Crappy Present" so they can make boat-loads more money off of it.
4) All of these things do not meet the definition of 'Bonus'. Because the normal Civ 5 game at a given price is what is expected. The UnDeluxe Edition gives a civ and a map minus the box which costs more than expected (yet costs nothing but bandwidth to Valve). This is not something in addition to what is expected.
It is the UnDeluxe UnBonus that almost punishes you for purchasing!
Agreed. I remember the early threads on steam, before it was announced that civ5 would require steam, that the common position was "there is no evidence that civ5 will require steam, so there is nothing to worry about". Many of us learned our lesson when it was announced that civ5 would require steam. It is regretful that many people are making the same mistake again.
Hypothetically, if it turned out that Civ5 was a virus that deleted my entire hard drive and set my computer on fire, I would be against that.
Just my opinion.
You really haven't been paying attention. Back then, very few people honestly thought that civ5 would require steam to run. If you did, you would be told, "don't worry, there's no evidence that civ5 will require steam, so therefore it will not require steam". Then came the announcement that civ5 would require steam. I admit, I was among the people saying don't worry. But I learned my lesson then: even if there is no evidence for something, does not mean it won't happen. Now it's the exact same story all over again....what mistake? What lesson learned? Of not boycotting Civ5 if they knew ahead of time? And regretful, really?